- You can now transfer jets from one air base to another, assuming it is within attack range. The transfer is set and treated as an attack, which means it displays (and can be canceled) in the attack list and the transfer will happen during the Daily Cycle. The jets will also take fire from enemy units/turrets during their transfer.

- You can schedule more transfers than the target base can hold (in case an earlier transfer doesn't go through, for example), but transfers will not take place if there isn't room for the new jets when the transfer is processed.

- You can now attack with a land unit on a transport after the transport's attack has been set. This allows you to pull to shore and attack in the same cycle.

- When you click to set the attack of a land unit on a transport, it will start the attack at the transport's destination so you can plot the land unit's attack path accurately. However, please keep in mind that the attack line drawn (in both the zoomed view and the world view's "Attacks" highlight) will originate at the land unit's location. (This is done to avoid the additional processing time of having to calculate the attack's origin every time the attack needs to be displayed.)

- You can now attack with a land unit on a transport after the transport's attack has been set. This allows you to pull to shore and attack in the same cycle.

- When you click to set the attack of a land unit on a transport, it will start the attack at the transport's destination so you can plot the land unit's attack path accurately. However, please keep in mind that the attack line drawn (in both the zoomed view and the world view's "Attacks" highlight) will originate at the land unit's location. (This is done to avoid the additional processing time of having to calculate the attack's origin every time the attack needs to be displayed.)

This one is particularly awesome. I like all the changes this weekend! Thank you!

a) Zooming near the right or bottom edges of the map now works correctly.

b) Creating a land unit from a base now correctly sets the base to "used" (which means it won't sell for the full value).

c) Selling a land unit using a base also sets the base to "used." (This was noted on the boards some time ago, but I forgot to note it at the time.)

d) Countries were not expiring on Cerato due to an overlap with it's Daily Cycle processing (which has grown rather lengthy). The time at which the expiration script runs has been adjusted, so it should no longer be a problem.

- A bug was reported that led to the discovery of a significant Daily Cycle glitch. Because of the error, aircraft carriers and missile frigates destroyed by air attacks left the air bases on the sea units intact (and usable as a base of attack). I cleared the remnant bases and corrected the glitch.

- A fairly significant change has been added to the game. New units, bases, and defense turrets will only be visible to their owners and their owner's alliance members on the day they are created. Enemies will not see (and cannot search for) a unit/base/turret until after a Daily Cycle has passed. This has been implemented to eliminate the advantage a player has by creating objects later in the day. Conceptually, consider it a delay for your intelligence services becomes aware of new enemy activity.

- The one exception to the new "invisibility" functionality is for new land units loaded onto sea units that are already visible to enemies. Since the sea unit is already visible, the land unit will also be visible to enemies. (If an existing, visible land unit is loaded onto a new, invisible sea unit, it will not display on the map. However, the land unit may be located by the World view's Search function.)

- Air bases now have a "cancel attacks" option that can be used to cancel all of its attacks.

- A fairly significant change has been added to the game. New units, bases, and defense turrets will only be visible to their owners and their owner's alliance members on the day they are created. Enemies will not see (and cannot search for) a unit/base/turret until after a Daily Cycle has passed. This has been implemented to eliminate the advantage a player has by creating objects later in the day. Conceptually, consider it a delay for your intelligence services becomes aware of new enemy activity.

- The one exception to the new "invisibility" functionality is for new land units loaded onto sea units that are already visible to enemies. Since the sea unit is already visible, the land unit will also be visible to enemies. (If an existing, visible land unit is loaded onto a new, invisible sea unit, it will not display on the map. However, the land unit may be located by the World view's Search function.)

- Air bases now have a "cancel attacks" option that can be used to cancel all of its attacks.

Just keeps getting better and better, this is the next best thing to a "fog of war" feature.

- A fairly significant change has been added to the game. New units, bases, and defense turrets will only be visible to their owners and their owner's alliance members on the day they are created. Enemies will not see (and cannot search for) a unit/base/turret until after a Daily Cycle has passed. This has been implemented to eliminate the advantage a player has by creating objects later in the day. Conceptually, consider it a delay for your intelligence services becomes aware of new enemy activity.

I could kiss you right now. But neither of us have had enough booze for that.

Johnny what's the deal with Radar? Does it work? How did a sea unit that wasn't on Radar yesterday show up on my coast and take said radar station?

if the unit takes the right path it can go from outside your radar range and get all the way to your coast in a single move.

This was actually discuss and looks to be "buried" by the Death of Anklyo discussion. But the radars (Especially on Cerato) are a useless and expensive upgrade. To "defend" against a landing force (doubly so since the land units move in the same move as transports) you have to catch them early (this means manually scanning your coast.

Example using numbers. Transport moves 17 spaces a turn radar see's straight at 25 spaces. So by the time a ship show up on radar it is within 8 spaces of your coast. If his turn comes randomly first he lands before you cant do anything to touch him. (again this is relying on radars).

I would rather see a 25 or 30k cost that could cover a substantial area off my coast. Not to mention that radars help 0 against missile frigates and aircraft carriers.

And here I was about to complain that ships moved too slow. It took about 6 days to cross the atlantic in 1889. Surely a warship can do a little faster. I've got a transport on Drypto that has barely made it halfway across one of the smaller seas in a week.

And here I was about to complain that ships moved too slow. It took about 6 days to cross the atlantic in 1889. Surely a warship can do a little faster. I've got a transport on Drypto that has barely made it halfway across one of the smaller seas in a week.

4x radar range and double ship movement... just a suggestion.

each square is approximately 60square miles. a level4 transport with a level1 contruck inside can do 15squares per day.

new york to london = 2983miles

2983/60 = 49.7squares

49.7/15 = 3.3

basically, the ships in the game can go from NYC to london in a little over three days. but these maps are pretty huge, so it's like colonizing jupiter.

Either shipping is too slow or the land units are too fast. But given the overarching imperative of playability, the shipping is too slow. The unit of measure, which you continue to fall back on, is not relevant. Ships can travel continuously in a straight line over long distances with sufficient fuel to maintain themselves. Vehicles cannot, unless we are to assume they are on a parking lot, solar powered, and there are nothing but sunny days.

Again, the overarching concern is playability, and naval assaults take months to develop and cannot be supported by bases enroute as land assaults can. Therefore the defender waits until the 11th hour, nukes the assault, and the whole multi-month long endeavor starts again. Only if you have overwhelming cash (Johnny on Ankylo) or a negligent defender can you pull off the assault. Therefore naval playability suffers greatly - and that is just a fact.

- A fairly significant change has been added to the game. New units, bases, and defense turrets will only be visible to their owners and their owner's alliance members on the day they are created. Enemies will not see (and cannot search for) a unit/base/turret until after a Daily Cycle has passed. This has been implemented to eliminate the advantage a player has by creating objects later in the day. Conceptually, consider it a delay for your intelligence services becomes aware of new enemy activity.

- The one exception to the new "invisibility" functionality is for new land units loaded onto sea units that are already visible to enemies. Since the sea unit is already visible, the land unit will also be visible to enemies. (If an existing, visible land unit is loaded onto a new, invisible sea unit, it will not display on the map. However, the land unit may be located by the World view's Search function.)

- Air bases now have a "cancel attacks" option that can be used to cancel all of its attacks.

- A fairly significant change has been added to the game. New units, bases, and defense turrets will only be visible to their owners and their owner's alliance members on the day they are created. Enemies will not see (and cannot search for) a unit/base/turret until after a Daily Cycle has passed. This has been implemented to eliminate the advantage a player has by creating objects later in the day. Conceptually, consider it a delay for your intelligence services becomes aware of new enemy activity.

- The one exception to the new "invisibility" functionality is for new land units loaded onto sea units that are already visible to enemies. Since the sea unit is already visible, the land unit will also be visible to enemies. (If an existing, visible land unit is loaded onto a new, invisible sea unit, it will not display on the map. However, the land unit may be located by the World view's Search function.)

- Air bases now have a "cancel attacks" option that can be used to cancel all of its attacks.

Not sure I am wild about is this change. It grants a huge advantage to the defender. It is not simply a matter of moving latter in the day. Within about a 10 square radius of your bases, your forces can attack as if they had klingon cloaking devices. The attacker has no idea what you have, even right in the base itself. Therefore a base that appears abandoned may be harboring not only a full strength tank and turret, but so can the entire neighborhood. The attacker would quite literally and quite blindly be throwing his or her forces away, when they might otherwise turn in another direction and take land instead. The days of a recon jeep grabbing an undefended base and exploiting the foothold might be gone for good.

I think this is a huge game shift in the balance of power between attacker and defender. "Fairly significant" doesn't quite capture it. "Conceptually, consider it a delay for your intelligence services becomes aware of new enemy activity" - even if it is in the square right next to them, or in every square around them.

I am not convinced this solution to the problem of people making their moves at different times of day is a good one. It might make create more problems than it solves - following the law of unintended consequences. Let's see how it plays.

I won't say if I agree or disagree with your thoughts about the latest change, but a defender, realistic, always have the advantage. If this change the favor towards the defender, then I'm okay with it.

Not only that, you could exploit it as an attacker too. If you drag a truck with you near their bases/capitals, you could easily build a base, create dozens of units, sell the base and the defender would have no idea about the backup units until next day.

Not sure I am wild about is this change. It grants a huge advantage to the defender. It is not simply a matter of moving latter in the day. Within about a 10 square radius of your bases, your forces can attack as if they had klingon cloaking devices. The attacker has no idea what you have, even right in the base itself. Therefore a base that appears abandoned may be harboring not only a full strength tank and turret, but so can the entire neighborhood. The attacker would quite literally and quite blindly be throwing his or her forces away, when they might otherwise turn in another direction and take land instead. The days of a recon jeep grabbing an undefended base and exploiting the foothold might be gone for good.

I think this is a huge game shift in the balance of power between attacker and defender. "Fairly significant" doesn't quite capture it. "Conceptually, consider it a delay for your intelligence services becomes aware of new enemy activity" - even if it is in the square right next to them, or in every square around them.

I am not convinced this solution to the problem of people making their moves at different times of day is a good one. It might make create more problems than it solves - following the law of unintended consequences. Let's see how it plays.

if you are waiting for your enemy to build up forces, then you're doing it wrong.

I won't say if I agree or disagree with your thoughts about the latest change, but a defender, realistic, always have the advantage. If this change the favor towards the defender, then I'm okay with it.

Not only that, you could exploit it as an attacker too. If you drag a truck with you near their bases/capitals, you could easily build a base, create dozens of units, sell the base and the defender would have no idea about the backup units until next day.

Not sure I am wild about is this change. It grants a huge advantage to the defender. It is not simply a matter of moving latter in the day. Within about a 10 square radius of your bases, your forces can attack as if they had klingon cloaking devices. The attacker has no idea what you have, even right in the base itself. Therefore a base that appears abandoned may be harboring not only a full strength tank and turret, but so can the entire neighborhood. The attacker would quite literally and quite blindly be throwing his or her forces away, when they might otherwise turn in another direction and take land instead. The days of a recon jeep grabbing an undefended base and exploiting the foothold might be gone for good.

I think this is a huge game shift in the balance of power between attacker and defender. "Fairly significant" doesn't quite capture it. "Conceptually, consider it a delay for your intelligence services becomes aware of new enemy activity" - even if it is in the square right next to them, or in every square around them.

I am not convinced this solution to the problem of people making their moves at different times of day is a good one. It might make create more problems than it solves - following the law of unintended consequences. Let's see how it plays.

I agree. I think the invisibility is creating steep advantages in ways that you can't adapt to.

For instance on Bogorov, Tonk is utilizing invisibility perfectly on a coastal attack. He can land a construction truck, build a base, build a new con truck and transport, move one day further down the coast, and repeat. There's absolutely nothing I can do to stop him because by repeating this process he can create bases all along my coast without ever presenting a visible target.

Constant I think you're half right. When it comes to key positions, like bases, defenders have a huge advantage. But when it comes to invading, the attacker has a huge advantage, since they can see their target clearly but the defender can't.

I mean with coastal battles why even have transports? Depending on proximity you could land a Construction truck on an enemy's land without ever being seen.

I think either this invisibility needs to be done away with or some serious exceptions to it need to be made. Perhaps new units should not be invisible when in a certain proximity to enemy bases or units. Also new units should still be detectable to radar. Maybe have something similar to land based radar.

I agree. I think the invisibility is creating steep advantages in ways that you can't adapt to.

For instance on Bogorov, Tonk is utilizing invisibility perfectly on a coastal attack. He can land a construction truck, build a base, build a new con truck and transport, move one day further down the coast, and repeat. There's absolutely nothing I can do to stop him because by repeating this process he can create bases all along my coast without ever presenting a visible target.

Constant I think you're half right. When it comes to key positions, like bases, defenders have a huge advantage. But when it comes to invading, the attacker has a huge advantage, since they can see their target clearly but the defender can't.

I mean with coastal battles why even have transports? Depending on proximity you could land a Construction truck on an enemy's land without ever being seen.

I think either this invisibility needs to be done away with or some serious exceptions to it need to be made. Perhaps new units should not be invisible when in a certain proximity to enemy bases or units. Also new units should still be detectable to radar. Maybe have something similar to land based radar.